Rational-legal authority

Vocation”, he states that political authority can be broken up into three different types. He defines these three types as Traditional authority, charismatic authority and rational-legal authority. Charismatic authority comes from a person’s special qualities and ability to hold followers because of them. Charismatic individuals may use their authority over a whole society or even just a specific group within a larger one. These individuals can use their authority for good and sometimes bad. Some

Max Weber proposed that there are three distinct types of authority. These are, charismatic authority, traditional authority, and legal-rational authority. All of these authorities are important to understand. Mostly, because they play huge roles in day-to-day life. For anything so present in the world, the general population, should, at bare minimum, make an attempt to understand the forces around them. Charismatic authority is often envied when its’ embodiment is seen in real life. Conley explains

Weber’s theory of authority and power in order to establish its role in the modern contemporary world today. Weber, in his most acclaimed writings, discusses his three ideal types of authority being outlined as traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. He believes that in order for any political leader or political establishment to hold legitimate authority over its peoples, they must have either one of these types of authority. All of these types of power and authority can be referred

The first type of authority is legal, or rational authority. Weber writes, “It is concerned with how a political order is regarded as legal in the eyes of the population…and the legitimacy is maintained by reference to a legal code” (13). Individuals or groups with legal rational authority are functional superiors or bureaucratic officials. This type of authority rules through the law, the government, and established norms. The reason their authority is accepted is that people generally

Legal rules are ethical rules or norms, for every legal pattern of conduct can be expressed in a proposition with the predicate 'ought to be'. At the same time legal patterns of conduct are supported by centralized power and its coordinating activity, and not merely by the mutual social interaction which produces and reinforces the ethical group-conviction[ Timasheff, 1939, p. 15]. Timasheff based his conception of law as the union of ethics and power on four propositions: 1) legal rules are recognized

need power and authority. Authority is power that is viewed as legitimately exercised over an individual, while coercion is power that is viewed as unjustly used over an individual. The state has a monopoly on violence and can use violence to punish those it sees fit. The only way that the state could be punished is by the state's citizens, if enough of them see their power as illegitimate. There are different types of authority that Max Weber identified; traditional, rational-legal, and charismatic

Externally, states take into account any and all threats existing in their environment that may bring about conflict to its right to rule. As states spend resources and time parcipaniting in competing with its outside rivals in military and economically ways to neutralize the threats to its legitimacy. On the other hand, how about the internal threats to the state legitimacy. With that being the case, is it possible for a state to be as successful with neutralizing threats to its legitimacy imposed

Whether we recognize authority or not it is extremely relevant in all forms of society. In everyday situations subordinates submit to authority. Many scholars, such as Milgram, Weber and Durkheim, have formulated theories surrounding the idea of authority and obedience. In order to visualize these situations of authority in society, my partner and I recorded observations of authority when attending a Catholic mass. Our study took place at Newman Hall- Holy Spirit Parish, located in Berkeley California

With authority one person or a group can have power over another group. Authority can go far and it can do a lot of things. It is identified and backed by the norms that are seen in any social system. It is excepted even if there are problems about it that has to be fixed. In the discussion theory assignment we had to consider questions that dealt with authority and why we obey it. When I was answering it I wrote, “I believe that we

as a leader, within a group of people. He supports this opening claim in his introduction paragraph, in which he defines the authority of domination “classified” by the “kind of claim” demanded (2). He ultimately supports his by breaking down the types of legitimacy in domination in three distinct categories: Legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority (3). He supports his argument through theoretical examples in which he assumes the reader has a background in. The assumptions